382 F. Supp. 2d 967 - Ross v. Petro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “THE COURT: All right. For purposes of the record, the jury is not present. Court received from the bailiff the following note from the jury as follows: “There is concern about a juror. I was approached by a spokesperson for four other jurors. From comments made by this juror these four jurors feel that he is agreeing with the group to expedite this process. I was told by these jurors that they [sic] following comments were made.” And that’s verbatim. “No. 1, we need to get this done today. “No. 2, why are we even discussing this. He has stated all along that he believes one thing but has all too quickly changed his vote to go along with the group. This morning this juror stated to me that we need to finish this today as he will be leaving after today because he has a problem at home but he did not want to put us in that position. “To another juror he made the comment that he knows that Brad O’Born was innocent because he passed a polygraph test so Denny Ross had to be guilty. “I have been asked if this juror can be released so that he may attend to his affairs at home and we can have an impartial and fair jury.” It’s signed, “Juror No. 4.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ross v. Petro

2. “In the present case there existed no manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial. Reasonable alternatives to a mistrial existed and the public interest in fan-trials designed to end in just judgments was not met by the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial. The trial court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial because it failed to investigate the information set forth in the jury note, it failed to explore alternatives to declaring a mistrial, it failed to take into consideration the verdicts that had been reached by the jury, it failed to ascertain whether any prejudice existed as a result of the information related in the foreperson’s note, it failed to attempt to cure any taint which may have existed, it acted precipitately in the declaration of a mistrial, and it failed to duly consider the defendant’s right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal, especially in light of the fact that this is a capital case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ross v. Petro